Americans United - Southern Baptist Conventionhttp://au.org/tags/southern-baptist-convention
enThe Truth Leaks Out: Top Southern Baptist Official Admits Churches Won’t Be Forced To Marry Same-Sex Coupleshttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-truth-leaks-out-top-southern-baptist-official-admits-churches-won-t-be
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In the years to come, churches that hold views that are considered backward and bigoted may find that fewer and fewer people are interested in attending their services. But that won’t come about because of a government fiat; it will occur due to a natural cultural evolution.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>For years now, Religious Right leaders have been whipping up hysteria by claiming that, should marriage equality become the law of the land, conservative churches will be <a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/03/audio-tony-perkins-fosters-lie-that-pastors-will-be-forced-to-marry-same-sex-couples.html">forced to host same-sex marriage ceremonies</a>.</p><p>As arguments go, this one is just not very good. Several states have had marriage equality for years, yet no member of the clergy has been compelled to officiate at a same-sex wedding. As far as I know, no lawsuits like this have even been filed.</p><p>If one were filed, it would quickly die in court. The First Amendment guarantees to houses of worship an absolute right to <a href="http://www.believeoutloud.com/latest/will-churches-be-forced-marry-same-sex-couples">decide for themselves</a> who can attend their services and who qualifies for their sacraments.</p><p>Nevertheless, this scare-tactic argument keeps popping up. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/29/fox-news-suggests-clergy-will-be-forced-to-marr/203466">cited it</a> during oral arguments in the marriage equality case April 28. Justice Elena Kagan quickly shut Scalia down by pointing out that some Orthodox rabbis will not marry a couple unless both parties are Jewish – and they’ve never been jailed or fined for that.</p><p>Thankfully, some conservative leaders are honest enough to concede that this just isn’t a realistic threat. Last week, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, admitted as much.</p><p>Mohler was asked about the matter during the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Columbus. <a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2015/06/southern-baptist-leader-admits-it-pastors-wont-be-punished-for-rejecting-same-sex-marriages.html">Here is what he said</a>:</p><p>“Look, I really don’t fear – it’s really important that you and the other presidents and every Southern Baptist pastor, every Gospel pastor, preacher needs to say ‘I’m not going to perform a same-sex wedding.’ But let’s be honest: There’s not really a danger that the sheriff’s gonna show up and say, ‘You have to do this.’ So far as I know, no pastor has been sued successfully for refusing to marry someone on other grounds; that’s not the real danger.”</p><p>Mohler went on to say that there will probably be a social price to pay. He told the crowd, “The real danger is we’re going to pay an enormous social, cultural price for not doing a same-sex ceremony….We’re going to be considered to be morally deficient. Let’s admit it: We’re much more accustomed to being accused of being morally superior. They’ve said we’ve been ‘stand-offish,’ meaning better than them. Now a large part of this culture thinks we are morally deficient. And we’re going to find that’s a very different way to do ministry.”</p><p>Bingo. The culture is shifting on this issue. In the years to come, churches that hold views that are considered backward and bigoted may find that fewer and fewer people are interested in attending their services. But that won’t come about because of a government fiat; it will occur due to a natural cultural evolution.</p><p>At the end of the day, I think that’s what’s really bothering some of the folks on the Religious Right: They are reluctant to admit it publicly, but deep down they know they are on the losing side of this issue. They know they’re going to be the odd ones out. They know the culture is turning against them.</p><p>I’m sure that’s a bitter pill. Of course, they don’t have to swallow it; they could change their views and stop spreading anti-LGBT messages. They could become welcoming and inclusive.</p><p>Instead, some on the Religious Right have decided to spread wild tales of persecution and imprisonment that will never come to pass. It’s good to know that at least one top official of a conservative denomination understands why all of that is just so much scare talk.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/albert-mohler">Albert Mohler</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-theological-seminary">Southern Baptist Theological Seminary</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antonin-scalia-elena-kagan">Antonin Scalia. Elena Kagan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/au-celebrates-and-defends-marriage-equality">AU Celebrates -- And Defends -- Marriage Equality!</a></span></div></div>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:29:03 +0000Rob Boston11200 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-truth-leaks-out-top-southern-baptist-official-admits-churches-won-t-be#commentsThey Can’t Have It Back: Southern Baptist Leader Seeks To ‘Reclaim’ Church-State Separationhttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/they-can-t-have-it-back-southern-baptist-leader-seeks-to-reclaim-church
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In virtually every modern church-state case heard by the Supreme Court, the SBC has been on the side of more church-state union, not separation. Under fundamentalist control, the denomination embraced a fatal mistake: believing that Caesar could enforce the “moral” society that the preaching of its pastors had failed to deliver. Persuasion was replaced with the raw power of the state.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>If there were a prize for unmitigated gall, it would be awarded today to Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.</p><p>Moore, speaking during a recent panel discussion at the Evangelical Leadership Summit, an event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., told the crowd that they need to “reclaim” the phrase separation of church and state, a term he admitted that “we long ago tossed overboard.”</p><p><a href="http://www.bpnews.net/43361/religious-liberty-needed-to-limit-state">Baptist Press reported</a> that Moore said that the term “does not mean secularization….It means that the state is limited and does not have lordship over the conscience….”</p><p>That sounds nice – until you remember that this is coming from a man whose denomination has spent the past 35 years or so doing everything in its power to undermine what Thomas Jefferson called “the wall of separation between church and state.”</p><p>It’s true that Baptists were once great champions of church-state separation. Some still are today, but the SBC long ago stopped being for the separation principle. After fundamentalists took over the denomination, it quickly became an appendage of the most reactionary wing of the Republican Party. Eroding Jefferson’s wall was job one. </p><p>In short order, the SBC went from celebrating the legacy of men like Roger Williams, John Leland and Isaac Backus to rallying around figures like W.A. Criswell, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas who once <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/W.+A.+Criswell%3A+the+wall+of+separation+of+church+and+state+and...-a0190196741">famously remarked</a>, “I believe this notion of separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel’s imagination.”</p><p>Baptist leaders who stood for tolerance and the right of conscience gave way to men like Bailey Smith, the president of the SBC in 1980 who uttered <a href="http://www.ethicsdaily.com/anniversary-of-bailey-smiths-harmful-moment-in-baptist-jewish-relations-cms-16564">this comment</a>: “It’s interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true messiah? It is blasphemy. It may be politically expedient, but no one can pray unless he prays through the name of Jesus Christ.”</p><p>Real, authentic Baptist historians were pushed aside for the likes of “Christian nation” advocate David Barton, a former Christian school teacher (not a historian) who calls separation of church and state a “myth.”</p><p>A denomination that had once proudly carried the banner for freedom of conscience was now demanding school prayer amendments, pressing for tax support of sectarian schools, bashing LGBT rights, advocating creationism in public schools, demanding that wives submit to their husbands and, most recently, insisting that its theological view of marriage be the law of the land for all.</p><p>In the mid-1990s, when the far right cooked up a monstrosity called the “religious freedom amendment” that would have removed church-state separation from the U.S. Constitution, SBC leaders didn’t protest this scheme to alter the First Amendment. Instead, they recommended some changes and <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Istook+amendment+revised+to+mollify+religious+groups,+introduced+in...-a019637050">then signed on</a>. They were happy to replace the genius of James Madison with a farrago patched together by a band of lawyers for Religious Right groups and see it promoted by former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, an obscure congressman from Oklahoma fronting for Newt Gingrich.</p><p>In virtually every modern church-state case heard by the Supreme Court, the SBC has been on the side of more church-state union, not separation. Under fundamentalist control, the denomination embraced a fatal mistake: believing that Caesar could enforce the “moral” society that the preaching of its pastors had failed to deliver. Persuasion was replaced with the raw power of the state.</p><p>So yes, the Baptists did toss the concept of church-state separation overboard. And that’s why a broad coalition of liberal and moderate Protestants, progressive Catholics, humanists, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans, etc., rescued it. We nurtured it. We breathed new life into it. We defended it from attacks. We stood up for it. We reminded all Americans of how important it is.</p><p>Perhaps most importantly, we debunked the lies of the “Christian nation” crowd. One of those myths is still spread by Moore: that secularism is the great enemy of faith. Far from it. An officially secular state is religion’s best friend. A secular state is not hostile to religion. It merely says that it’s not the job of any branch of government to favor religion or to have an opinion on theological matters. It leaves that discussion to private arenas.</p><p>Under our secular Constitution and our secular state, thousands of religions and philosophies have bloomed. It is hard to argue with that success, but there have always been those among us who are angry and bitter because the government dares to equate “false” religions with their “true” one.</p><p>Secular government and the separation of church and state are not enemies; they’re partners. Moore fails to understand this. And it is why he’ll never succeed in reclaiming the separation of church and state.</p><p>You see, Moore does not really want to reclaim the separation principle. He wants to redefine it. He wants to twist it and warp it and make it the servant of his theology, a prop for his vision of a godly society.</p><p>But it’s too late for that. The SBC has abandoned, neglected and abused the separation of church and state for too long. They can’t have it back because they’ll do that again.</p><p>Rest assured, Mr. Moore, that those of us who value this vital principle of American life aren’t about to let that happen. (Today is Constitution Day – the perfect time to send that message.)</p><p>And if you choose to come for it anyway, you’ll find you have quite a fight on your hands.</p><p>P.S. Remember, the SBC does not represent all Baptists. Some still hold to the traditional view of support for church-state separation. Visit some of them <a href="http://bjconline.org/">here</a>.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/russell-moore">Russell Moore</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution-day">Constitution Day</a></span></div></div>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:58:05 +0000Simon Brown10493 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/they-can-t-have-it-back-southern-baptist-leader-seeks-to-reclaim-church#commentsRetreating Or Repositioning?: Southern Baptists And The ‘Culture War’http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retreating-or-repositioning-southern-baptists-and-the-culture-war
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Is the Southern Baptist Convention surrendering in the &#039;culture war&#039;? Not quite. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>When the Religious Right started to become a prominent force in American politics in the late 1970s, its advocates had a major impact on the country’s largest Protestant denomination: the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).</p><p>Younger readers may be surprised to read that the SBC, which claims 16 million members, used to be fairly moderate on social issues. It strongly supported the separation of church and state, citing historical Baptist leaders like <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2004-church-state/featured/legacy-of-liberty">John Leland</a> and Isaac Backus.</p><p>But during the 1980s, the denomination fell to a well-organized fundamentalist bloc and flipped many of its positions. The SBC became closely aligned with the Religious Right and the Republican Party. It enlisted as a full-time combatant in the “culture war.”</p><p>In Washington, D.C., the SBC was represented by its lobbyist, Richard Land. Land pushed the denomination into even closer alignment with the GOP, often handicapping the prospects of Republican presidential candidates in the media. Land appeared at Religious Right meetings and never hesitated to reach for <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/extreme-lobbying-southern-baptists-richard-land-defends-nazi-analogies">the most lurid rhetoric</a>.</p><p>Land retired from the SBC in 2013. His successor, Russell Moore, is, according to a recent <em>Wall Street Journal</em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424127887324755104579072722223166570-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMjEyNDIyWj"> profile,</a> interested in stepping back from the culture wars.</p><p>The <em>Journal</em> reports that Moore believes it is time to dial down the rhetoric and pull back from partisan politics. He cites a “visceral recoil” among younger evangelicals to heavy handed church-based politicking.</p><p>“We are involved in the political process, but we must always be wary of being co-opted by it,” Moore said. “Christianity thrives when it is clearest about what distinguishes it from the outside culture.”</p><p>OK, what’s really going on here? I suspect several factors are at play.</p><p>First of all, short of giving the job to <a href="http://ffcoalition.com/">Ralph Reed</a>, it would have been next to impossible for the SBC to have hired a replacement more extreme and more partisan than Land. This is the guy, after all, who <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for">once spoke</a> of his desire to “consummate” the relationship between right-wing evangelicals and the GOP, compared Hillary Clinton to a witch and called U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer that “schmuck from New York.”</p><p>In comparison to Land, just about anyone would look more moderate.</p><p>Secondly, the use of less strident language is nice, but it doesn’t mean that the SBC’s policy positions are going to change. In fact, the <em>Journal</em> article makes it clear that the SBC has no plans to soften any of its far-right stands on issues like religion in public education, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, etc.</p><p>Sure, they’ll talk nicer while they push for theocracy. Big deal.</p><p>Thirdly, some of this appears to be a public relations stunt. The leaders of the SBC know they have a problem with younger people, so they are toning down the rhetoric in the hopes that more congregants won’t jump ship. This may fool some people, but again, it’s not a change of policy. (See point two above.)</p><p>Over at the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, the poor man’s Glenn Beck,<a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2013/10/23/southern-baptists-sounding-full-scale-retreat-in-culture-war#.UmfJnmvoApA.twitter"> is on the warpath</a>, asserting that Moore is leading the SBC into a position of surrender.</p><p>“Since one man’s ‘pullback’ is another’s ‘full-scale retreat,’ social conservatives have a right to raise questions about the new course Moore is setting for the SBC,” Fischer bemoaned. Elsewhere he added, “Moore seems to have forgotten that Christ has not called us to be nice but to be good. Nice people never confront evil, but good people do.”</p><p>But Fischer throws a fit every day. It’s what he’s paid to do – be perpetually outraged and outrageous. We can hardly look to him for sound analysis of any issue outside of how to build really strong tinfoil hats.</p><p>I don’t see this as a retreat in the culture wars by the SBC, and it’s certainly not a surrender. I’d call it a tactical repositioning.</p><p>So keep your guard up. I suspect we haven’t seen the last of the SBC’s salvos against the church-state wall.</p><p>P.S. Remember, not all Baptists agree with the SBC on church-state issues. Our good friends at the<a href="http://www.bjcpa.org/"> Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty </a>have stood alongside AU for years, arguing for the traditional Baptist principle of freedom of conscience for all.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/russell-moore">Russell Moore</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bryan-fischer">Bryan Fischer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ralph-reed">ralph reed</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-leland">John Leland</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/baptist-joint-committee-religious-liberty">Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty</a></span></div></div>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:58:05 +0000Rob Boston9080 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retreating-or-repositioning-southern-baptists-and-the-culture-war#commentsPersecution Complex: Catholic Hierarchy, Religious Right Continue Heated Attack On Birth Control Mandatehttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/persecution-complex-catholic-hierarchy-religious-right-continue-heated
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">These folks want to impose their theological views about birth control on other Americans who may not share those views.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>A claim that someone is being persecuted by a government is not something to be taken lightly, but that accusation rings hollow when it comes to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and Religious Right’s fight for exemption from the Obama administration’s birth control mandate.</p><p>Last week, <a href="http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/Portals/0/CENTER/Final%20ADF-CNS_comment_on_NPRM%2004%2005%2013.pdf">a group of 22 Catholic educational organizations sent comments</a> to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to express concern “about the illegal violations of religious freedom” that supposedly stem from the Obama administration’s implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).</p><p>Under HHS regulations, most employers are expected to offer a health care policy that includes access to birth control at no cost to the employee. Houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, and employees at religiously affiliated entities such as church schools and hospitals will get contraceptive coverage from third-party insurers. Their employers won’t have to pay for it.</p><p>The most recent proposed accommodations were announced in February, and at that time HHS asked for additional comments, which were due this week.</p><p>In response to that request, the 22 Catholic colleges and universities sent a letter drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Religious Right legal outfit founded by radio and television preachers, that rejected the latest compromise. The proposed accommodation, the schools said, “illegally require[s] religious objectors to issue health plans that cause coverage of ‘contraception.’”</p><p>The ADF-composed letter even called the contraceptive mandate an unprecedented violation of religious liberty.</p><p>“No other federal rule has so narrowly and discriminatorily defined what it means to exercise religious conscience, and no regulation has ever so directly violated plain statutory and constitutional religious freedoms,” the letter said. </p><p>Others, like the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, <a href="http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/tanner_letter.pdf">made similar charges</a>. And back in March, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops <a href="http://www.ilcatholic.org/usccb-revised-hhs-mandate-violates-religious-freedom/ http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=40042">weighed in</a>, listing five objections to the contraceptive mandate. The points followed a predictable theme: the mandate supposedly infringes on religious freedom.</p><p>Harsh as those accusations were, others went even further. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) <a href="http://erlc.com/documents/pdf/20130408-ltr-hhs-erlc-comment.pdf">said in an April 8 comment that the mandate amounts to persecution</a>.</p><p>“Through its mandate, HHS is abusing the authority of the federal government by forcing believers to choose between either offending their God and violating their consciences or facing crushing fines and possible imprisonment for adhering to their deeply held moral convictions,” said Richard Land, outgoing president of the ERLC. “This is, by definition, a form of religious persecution.”</p><p>This claim completely mischaracterizes the issue and is blatantly false. Land should know better, but this kind of attack is sort of his thing. </p><p>What’s the bottom line here? It’s this: These folks want to impose their theological views about birth control on other Americans who may not share those views.</p><p>In part to combat the misinformation coming from those who oppose birth control access, Americans United <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/2013-03-04_PrevServACA-AUcomments.pdf">sent a letter of its own</a> to HHS on April 8. AU rejected all of the claims by the Catholic hierarchy and Religious Right, while also encouraging the Obama administration not to back down.</p><p>“In the end, the provision of a comprehensive set of health-care benefits is really no different than the provision of a paycheck; employees are free to utilize both kinds of benefits in any manner that they wish, and the employer cannot reasonably be perceived to support or endorse any particular use thereof,” asserted AU in the comments. “Thus, the requirement that entities include insurance coverage for contraceptives as part of group insurance plans places no substantial burden on the employer.”</p><p>AU also noted that the exemption for religious organizations and their affiliates surpasses what the U.S. Constitution requires.</p><p>“The current exemption and accommodation far surpass necessity, and the Administration should reject further arguments to extend them,” AU said.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/free-birth-control-rules-to-be-finalized/">HHS is now working to finalize the rules on the contraceptive mandate</a>, which HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said will take effect Aug. 1.</p><p>“As of Aug. 1, 2013, every employee who doesn’t work directly for a church or a diocese will be included in the benefit package,” she said, according to the <em>Washington Times</em>.</p><p>If Sebelius and her colleagues are in tune with public opinion, no further accommodations will be made. LifeWay Research, which is the research arm of Land’s Southern Baptist Convention, found that <a href="http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&amp;catalogId=10001&amp;langId=-1&amp;article=research-majority-americans-support-mandatory-obamacare-contraception-coverage">63 percent of adults say</a> “businesses should be required to provide their employees with free contraception and birth control, even if it runs counter to the owners’ religious principles.”</p><p>This issue has<a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-administration-to-begin-finalizing-hhs-mandate-rules-today"> generated quite a bit of comment from all sides</a>, and it’s likely that the matter won’t be settled until the U.S. Supreme Court decides it. But one thing should be clear – no one is being persecuted here.</p><p>Ultimately, access to birth control is a personal decision to be made by individuals, as AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn noted in a recent media statement.</p><p>“Americans want and deserve access to safe and affordable birth control,” he said. “Put simply, the decision to use contraceptives is a personal matter and should be governed by the individual, not powerful sectarian lobbies.”</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kathleen-sebelius">Kathleen Sebelius</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-department-of-health-and-human-services">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-conference-catholic-bishops">U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alliance-defending-freedom">Alliance Defending Freedom</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/knights-of-columbus">Knights of Columbus</a></span></div></div>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:20:14 +0000Simon Brown8275 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/persecution-complex-catholic-hierarchy-religious-right-continue-heated#commentsBerry Good: Kentucky Poet Tackles Church, State And Marriage Equalityhttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/berry-good-kentucky-poet-tackles-church-state-and-marriage-equality
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">“Perhaps the most dangerous temptation to Christianity is to get itself officialized in some version by a government....&quot;
--Wendell Berry</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Wendell Berry is a Kentucky farmer, poet and essayist best known for his advocacy of responsible stewardship of the environment. He has offered compelling critiques of strip mining and other excesses of our over-industrialized, war-mad planet.</p><p>Some folks consider Berry a modern-day Henry David Thoreau, but last week he sounded more like an Old Testament prophet railing against injustice. Addressing a Baptist pastors’ conference at Georgetown College in Georgetown, Ky., he took on the issue of marriage equality for gay couples.</p><p>Excoriating the sad history of religion-based intolerance in the world, Berry reminded his listeners that persecution is often the result when church and state merge.</p><p>According to the <a href="http://www.abpnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/8130-wendell-berry-expounds-on-gay-marriage#.UPgRUGeWrcs">Associated Baptist Press</a>, Berry said he has only addressed the topic of marriage equality a couple of times, but those remarks have been enough to spark great controversy.</p><p>“My argument, much abbreviated both times, was the sexual practices of consenting adults ought not to be subjected to the government’s approval or disapproval,” recalled Berry, “and that domestic partnerships in which people who live together and devote their lives to one another ought to receive the spousal rights, protections and privileges the government allows to heterosexual couples.”</p><p>Berry said allowing gay couples to marry poses no danger to heterosexual marriage, and he argued that conservatives who claim to support “small government” ought to be very wary of welcoming government into people’s bedrooms to police conduct there.</p><p>“One may find the sexual practices of homosexuals to be unattractive or displeasing and therefore unnatural,” Berry observed, “but anything that can be done in that line by homosexuals can be done and is done by heterosexuals. Do we need a legal remedy for this? Would conservative Christians like a small government bureau to inspect, approve and certify their sexual behavior? Would they like a colorful tattoo verifying government approval on the rumps of lawfully copulating parties? We have the technology, after all, to monitor everybody’s sexual behavior, but so far as I can see so eager an interest in other people’s private intimacy is either prurient or totalitarian or both.”</p><p>Berry saves his most pointed criticism for the sordid history of religion/government combinations.</p><p>“When I consider the hostility of political churches to homosexuality and homosexual marriage,” he asserted, “I do so remembering the history of Christian war, torture, terror, slavery and annihilation against Jews, Muslims, black Africans, American Indians and others. And more of the same by Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics, Catholics against Catholics, Protestants against Protestants, as if by law requiring the love of God to be balanced by hatred of some neighbor for the sin of being unlike some divinely preferred us.</p><p>“If we are a Christian nation – as some say we are, using the adjective with conventional looseness,” he continued, “then this Christian blood thirst continues wherever we find an officially identifiable evil, and to the immense enrichment of our Christian industries of war.</p><p>“Condemnation by category,” Berry argued, “is the lowest form of hatred, for it is cold-hearted and abstract, lacking even the courage of a personal hatred.</p><p>“Categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob,” he said. “It makes cowards brave. And there is nothing more fearful than a religious mob, a mob overflowing with righteousness – as at the crucifixion and before and since. This can happen only after we have made a categorical refusal to kindness: to heretics, foreigners, enemies or any other group different from ourselves.</p><p>“Perhaps the most dangerous temptation to Christianity,” Berry concluded, “is to get itself officialized in some version by a government, following pretty exactly the pattern the chief priest and his crowd at the trial of Jesus. For want of a Pilate of their own, some Christians would accept a Constantine or whomever might be the current incarnation of Caesar.”</p><p>Wow. Pretty strong stuff.</p><p>Kentucky is an increasingly "red" state these days, and Georgetown College, a small evangelical school with historic Baptist ties, may not seem like the most likely spot for a jeremiad like this one. But I can’t think of a place where it’s any more appropriate.</p><p>Baptists were once strong supporters of church-state separation, and many still are. But the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, for decades has been in the iron grip of a fundamentalist faction that has forgotten history and hates church-state separation. Berry’s sermon is an altar call that Southern Baptist backsliders badly need to hear.</p><p>As a native Kentuckian, I salute Wendell Berry and hope his words get wide circulation.</p><p>PS: I also salute the Associated Baptist Press. This <a href="http://www.abpnews.com/">small news agency </a>does a stellar job of reporting on all things Baptist. Berry’s speech might have gone unnoticed if it were not for the ABP. Keep up the great work, ABP folks!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/wendell-berry">Wendell Berry</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/georgetown-college">Georgetown College</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/au-defends-marriage-equality">AU Defends Marriage Equality</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/kentucky">Kentucky</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-chapter field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Chapters:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/chapters/louisville">Louisville</a></div></div></div>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:16:31 +0000Joseph L. Conn7924 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/berry-good-kentucky-poet-tackles-church-state-and-marriage-equality#commentsNoble Advice: Keep The Church Out Of Partisan Politics http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/noble-advice-keep-the-church-out-of-partisan-politics
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A poll released this month by LifeWay Research, which is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, found a whopping 87 percent of Protestant pastors disagreed that clergy should endorse candidates in church.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Religious Right makes it seem like nearly every pastor in America would endorse political candidates from the pulpit if only the pesky tax code didn’t prohibit it, but a new survey shows that couldn’t be further from the truth.</p><p><a href="http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&amp;catalogId=10001&amp;langId=-1&amp;article=research-majority-pastors-disapprove-pulpit-endorsements">A poll released this month</a> by LifeWay Research, which is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, found a whopping 87 percent of Protestant pastors disagreed that clergy should endorse candidates in church. This is a slight increase from a December 2010 survey in which 84 percent of pastors said ministers shouldn’t do so.</p><p>But what about evangelical pastors, the wheelhouse of the Religious Right? An overwhelming majority of them (86 percent) said pastors should not endorse anyone from the pulpit. Even 82 percent of pastors who identified as Republicans felt such endorsements are wrong (compared with 98 percent of pastors who identify as Democrats).</p><p>When it comes to personal endorsements made by clergy away from the pulpit, which is not a violation of federal tax law for 501(c)(3) organizations, many pastors still expressed reluctance. LifeWay found that 52 percent of the 1,000 pastors surveyed have not endorsed candidates this year even outside of their ministerial capacity. </p><p>The survey was taken ahead of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” an annual stunt staged by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an Arizona-based legal outfit founded by radio and TV preachers. Since 2008, the ADF has encouraged pastors to endorse or oppose candidates for office in the hope that the IRS will revoke the tax exemption of a church. This would then allow the ADF to challenge that pulpit politicking prohibition in court in the hope that it would be found unconstitutional.</p><p>To date, the ADF hasn’t achieved its goal, <a href="http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sunday-scofflaws-it-s-time-for-the-irs-to-crack-down-on-pulpit-freedom">but it did claim a record number of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” participants this year</a> with more than 1,500. But less than two weeks later, the leader of a South Carolina megachurch (<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/perry-noble-never-pretty-when-the-church-crawls-in-bed-with-politics-83491/">that averages about 16,000 attendees on weekends</a>) slammed the whole idea of preachers telling their flocks how to vote.</p><p><a href="http://www.perrynoble.com/2012/10/17/the-church-politics-a-mess/">In a scathing piece on his personal website</a>, Pastor Perry Noble of NewSpring Church said “it’s never pretty when the church crawls in bed with politics.”</p><p>Noble went on to explain that anyone who seeks salvation from a politician is looking in the wrong place.</p><p>“I have a question for Republicans and Democrats alike…how is putting your hope in a political savior going for you?” Noble asked. “Four years ago the nation was captivated by Barack Obama, a man who promised ‘hope’ and ‘change.’ Here we are four years later, the housing market has not recovered, the unemployment rate is still hovering around 8% and like it or not America is considered weak when it comes to foreign policy.”</p><p>Noble then questioned whether anyone genuinely believes “a Romney victory is going to save the direction of this country?” Given that many evangelicals think Mormonism is a cult, I’m betting they don’t actually have high hopes for Romney.</p><p>Ultimately, Noble concluded, “The more I read Scripture the more it is obvious that when the people of God depend on a political savior rather than a heavenly one the result is always disappointment.</p><p>“All too often churches are seemingly becoming obsessed with our government passing legislation regarding abortion, homosexual marriage and other hot button topics, believing that the passing of a particular law will somehow stop the downward spiral our country is obviously on,” Noble said. “The REAL issue the church has been called to deal with is the condition of the human heart. Yes, our country is in desperate need of change…but the kind brought about when God’s grace collides with our sinfulness.”</p><p>Those comments are among the best and most direct condemnation by a pastor in recent memory of the entire Religious Right movement in the United States. That they came from the leader of a southern megachurch is extremely important and powerful.</p><p>What Noble’s words and the LifeWay survey show are that the Religious Right is fighting a misguided battle on behalf of a small segment of the population. That doesn’t mean the Religious Right isn’t powerful or shouldn’t be taken seriously, but it shows that a very small number of people are trying to control the lives of hundreds of millions who disagree with their principles.</p><p>This is why it is so important to stand up to the Religious Right, and why Americans United works so hard, every day, to oppose those who think they have the right to control everyone else.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lifeway-research">LifeWay Research</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/perry-noble">Perry Noble</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/alliance-defending-freedom">Alliance Defending Freedom</a></span></div></div>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:11:25 +0000Simon Brown7652 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/noble-advice-keep-the-church-out-of-partisan-politics#commentsLand’s End (Sort Of): Beleaguered Southern Baptist Lobbyist Heads For Retirementhttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">A faithful advocate of the Religious Right agenda for 25 years, Land has been shrill, aggressively partisan and deeply hostile to the church-state wall. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Notorious Southern Baptist lobbyist Richard Land has announced his retirement. I’d break out the champagne, but I fear that this is a mere change of personnel, not policy.</p><p>The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was once a staunch supporter of church-state separation. But in 1979, fundamentalists orchestrated a takeover that moved the nation’s largest Protestant denomination in exactly the opposite direction.</p><p>Land, head of the so-called Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, lobbied for the SBC for nearly 25 years. He is the embodiment of the SBC’s conversion from friend of religious liberty to agent of theocracy. A faithful advocate of the Religious Right agenda for 25 years, Land has been shrill, aggressively partisan and deeply hostile to the church-state wall.</p><p>Land’s career has come to an ignominious end. He leaves his post after being reprimanded by denominational leaders for plagiarizing material on his radio show and for making racially insensitive comments about the Trayvon Martin shooting death in Florida.</p><p>But these recent lapses in judgment come after over two decades of dubious lobbying for right-wing causes and shilling for the Republican Party (despite the church agency’s tax-exempt status). Land worked aggressively to merge the Religious Right with the GOP and dismissed any concerns about injecting religious concepts into the government.</p><p>In 1998, for example, he told <em>The New York Times</em> that Religious Right leaders wanted a more fruitful relationship with the Republican Party.</p><p>“The go-along, get-along strategy is dead,” he said. “No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.” </p><p>In 2007, Land gave his views on the relationship between religion and government, asserting, “When we convince a majority of Americans that we are right, that’s not called a theocracy, that’s called the democratic process.”</p><p>Land regularly touted GOP candidates that met his approval. For example, in the 2008 primary season he shamelessly plugged presidential hopeful Fred Thompson’s candidacy, calling him a “Southern-fried Reagan.”</p><p>“To see Fred work a crowd,” he gushed, “must be what it was like to watch Rembrandt paint."</p><p>Land was always quick with a strident comment about his political opponents. He compared Hillary Clinton to Darth Vader and a witch (warning that she would like to park her broom outside the Supreme Court for life).</p><p>In January, 2008, Land called U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer that "schmuck from New York." The lobbyist was angry because Schumer had pressed chief justice nominee John Roberts with questions during confirmation hearings. (The Oxford-educated Land said he didn’t know that some consider the word “crude, if not obscene.”)</p><p>And despite his supposed mission of advocating religious liberty, Land showed little courage in the task. He joined an interfaith coalition working to secure religious liberty rights for Muslims, but dropped out in January 2011 after church members’ raised complaints. He said some Southern Baptists falsely thought he was promoting Islam. (He also opposed the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque in Manhattan, arguing that it should be built elsewhere.)</p><p>This is just a sampling of Land’s checkered record. In short, he rarely missed an opportunity to dabble in partisan politics or oppose reproductive justice, gay rights or other advances for civil rights and civil liberties.</p><p>And, sadly, Land has promised to continue his crusade from other platforms.</p><p>In his retirement announcement, he said, ““I believe the ‘culture war’ is a titanic spiritual struggle for our nation’s soul and as a minister of Christ’s Gospel, I have no right to retire from that struggle.”</p><p>There is also little sign that the Southern Baptist denomination is ready to repent of its Religious Right profession of faith. When leaders choose a new head for the Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, it’s likely to be a Land clone – although maybe a less bombastic one.</p><p>Those of us who support individual freedom and church-state separation may be happy that Land will soon have one less pulpit for his misguided preachments, but we shouldn’t think our liberties are any safer because he’s moved on.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/lobbying-by-churches-and-religious-groups">Lobbying by Churches and Religious Groups</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/richard-land">richard land</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ethics-religious-liberty-commission">Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission</a></span></div></div>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:05:22 +0000Joseph L. Conn7406 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/land-s-end-sort-of-beleaguered-southern-baptist-lobbyist-heads-for#commentsAmen Averse: Record Number Of Americans Want Less Religion In Politicshttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/amen-averse-record-number-of-americans-want-less-religion-in-politics
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It’s no secret that politicians work hard to stay “on message” during a campaign, but it’s clear that some candidates have played the faith card too many times.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>It seems that Americans have heard just about enough about religion in political campaigns. </p><p>A new <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/more-see-too-much-religious-talk-by-politicians.aspx#church">survey</a> released by the Pew Forum On Religion &amp; Public Life found that 38 percent of Americans said politicians have spent too much time expressing their religious faith and praying. That’s up from 2010, when 29 percent of Americans said there was too much religious expression by political leaders.</p><p>According to Pew, “[t]he number saying there has been too much religious talk from political leaders now stands at its highest point since the Pew Research Center began asking the question more than a decade ago.”</p><p>The survey even found that there has been an increase in this sentiment across party lines.</p><p>The biggest spike came from people who identify as Democrats, 46 percent of whom said politicians talk too much about faith (up from 32 percent in 2010). Dissatisfaction is also growing among people who identify as Republicans, 24 percent of whom said candidates spend too much time on religion. In 2001, only 8 percent of Republicans had the same gripe. </p><p>Among those who identify as Independent, a coveted demographic for both political parties, 42 percent said politicians talk too much about religion, a 6 percent increase from 2010. (In 2001, only 14 percent of Independents thought there was too much emphasis on religion.)</p><p>The Pew survey also asked respondents about how much involvement churches should have in politics. Sixty percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents and 44 percent of Republicans said churches should not be involved in politics. </p><p>(It should be noted, however, that respondents were asked if churches and other houses of worship “should stay out of political matters.” The question shouldn’t have been phrased that way, because there’s a big difference between a church endorsing a candidate – which violates federal tax law -- and a church discussing a national political issue, which does not.)</p><p>This survey is yet another example of how out of touch some politicians are with the electorate – and it’s far from the only example. LifeWay Research, which is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, <a href="http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/candidates-and-religion-voters-want-policy-plans-not-a-profession-of-faith">found</a> that just 16 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who speaks regularly about his or her religious beliefs.</p><p>It’s no secret that politicians work hard to stay “on message” during a campaign, but it’s clear that some candidates have played the faith card too many times. The American public is tired of this broken record and wants to hear a new tune. Candidates should be discussing the myriad of problems facing this country, not how often they pray.</p><p>What people really want is a stable economy, more jobs and a better life for themselves and their families. Politicians who spend most of their time talking about how often they pray isn’t doing much to deliver any of those things. </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-groups-involvement-in-candidate-elections">Religious Groups’ Involvement in Candidate Elections</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pew-forum-on-religion-public-life">Pew Forum On Religion &amp; Public Life</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lifeway-research-center">LifeWay Research Center</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span></div></div>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:17:39 +0000Simon Brown6934 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/amen-averse-record-number-of-americans-want-less-religion-in-politics#commentsCandidates And Religion: Voters Want Policy Plans, Not A Profession Of Faithhttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/candidates-and-religion-voters-want-policy-plans-not-a-profession-of-faith
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Most Americans, including most conservative Christians, don’t want to be beaten over the head with religious rants from politicians.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>During this election cycle, a lot of candidates have been pandering incessantly to the Religious Right under the assumption that wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve will mean more votes.</p><p>Turns out they’re wrong.</p><p>A <a href="http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Study-Americans-weigh-in-on-political-candidates-who-express-their-faith">survey</a> conducted by LifeWay Research, which is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, found that just 16 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who speaks regularly about his or her religious beliefs.</p><p>In fact, religious discussion is a turnoff for many voters. Thirty percent of poll respondents said they were less likely to vote for candidates who flaunt their religious commitments.</p><p>This just goes to show how out of touch some politicians really are. </p><p>"Different people get a different picture in their mind when a political candidate shares or shows their religious convictions," said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. "While some Americans warm up to this, many don't see it as a positive."</p><p>The survey also revealed some interesting trends about voting preferences by age and race.</p><p>Thirty-seven percent of Americans age 65 and over were the most likely to say a candidate's expressed religious views would have zero influence on their choice of a candidate.</p><p>African Americans are the most likely to dislike religious expression by office seekers, with a mere 2 percent saying they would be "more likely to vote for the candidate" who expresses his or her beliefs regularly. Forty-three percent of African Americans said they would be less likely to vote for an outspoken religious candidate, followed by 41 percent of Hispanic Americans who said the same thing.</p><p>Respondents who identified as born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist Christian are only 17 percent "more likely to vote for the candidate" espousing religious convictions compared to voters who do not share their beliefs. Similarly, these self-identified conservative Christians are only 16 percent more likely to choose "depends on the religion" when picking a candidate compared to those who do not identify with these beliefs.</p><p>The least surprising finding was that nonreligious Americans don’t like overly religious candidates. Sixty-seven percent of respondents who do not attend worship services said a candidate's repeated religious rhetoric would make them "less likely to vote for a candidate." Just 3 percent would be more likely to vote for the candidate.</p><p>Every candidate for public office should take a look at this survey because it shows that most Americans, including most conservative Christians, don’t want to be beaten over the head with religious rants from politicians.</p><p>Americans definitely favor office seekers who have moral grounding, they just want to get beyond theological discussion and hear what these folks have to say about other matters, like, you know, how they would govern. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/lifeway-research">LifeWay Research</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span></div></div>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:59:02 +0000Simon Brown6707 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/candidates-and-religion-voters-want-policy-plans-not-a-profession-of-faith#commentsDominion Denial: Methinks Chuck Colson Doth Protest Too Muchhttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/dominion-denial-methinks-chuck-colson-doth-protest-too-much
<a href="/about/people/joseph-l-conn">Joseph L. Conn</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sorry, Chuck. We aren’t mischaracterizing your agenda. We’re exposing it.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Do Religious Right zealots want to take “dominion” in America and govern according to their version of biblical law?</p>
<p>Of course they do. But all of a sudden, leaders of the movement say they don’t. Stung by a series of articles exposing the dominionist agenda, they are desperately trying to rebrand themselves as moderates.</p>
<p>Take Chuck Colson, for example.</p>
<p>In a Sept. 7 column, Colson <a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17786">heatedly denied </a>that he and his camp want a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.</p>
<p>“Now, there are such things as Christian theocrats, usually called ‘theonomists,’ but they’re a tiny fringe,” he wrote. “The people being labeled ‘theocrats’ and ‘Dominionists’ by the press today don’t want the United States governed by a Christian equivalent of sharia law. Like, Dr. [Martin Luther] King, they simply believe that their religious positions and moral convictions don’t disqualify them from the public square.”</p>
<p>A week later, Colson <a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17834">returned to the topic.</a> He accused progressives of playing “six degrees of separation” with Religious Right leaders. Just because raging Christian Reconstructionist theocrat Rousas J. Rushdoony influenced Religious Right guru Francis Schaeffer who in turn influenced everyone in the modern-day Religious Right doesn’t mean, Colson says, that they all are Rushdoony-style theocrats.</p>
<p>“The people playing this game,” Colson asserted, “must appreciate how unfair this is…. Yet, they play on. Instead of engaging us on the level of ideas, they impugn our motives. Instead of asking us what we really think, they find some obscure crank and then draw lines linking us to him or her.”</p>
<p>Colson, of course, is partly right. Guilt by association is wrong. But when he claims that he and his fellow Religious Right leaders are not dominionists, he’s merely covering his tracks.</p>
<p>Colson knows that Americans <a href="http://blog.au.org/2011/08/25/prostituting-the-pulpit-religious-right-wants-churches-to-get-partisan-but-most-americans-don%E2%80%99t/">overwhelmingly oppose </a>the politicization of churches and <a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2011/09/constitution-mandates.html">support the separation </a>of church and state. If he and his cronies are too candid about their agenda, Americans are certain to reject it.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean Colson isn’t a dominionist. In friendly settings, he has freely admitted it.</p>
<p>In June 2007, Colson addressed the pastors conference of the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination dominated by fundamentalists. (The speech <a href="http://www.ethicsdaily.com/colson-warns-southern-baptists-about-islam-atheism-cms-9040">was reported at</a> EthicsDaily.com.)</p>
<p>“What is our purpose in life?” Colson asked. “It is to restore the fallen culture to the glory of God. It’s to take command and dominion over every aspect of life, whether it’s music, science, law, politics, communities, families – to bring Christianity to bear in every single area of life.”</p>
<p>Hmmm. “Take command and dominion over every aspect of life.”</p>
<p>Now, forgive me for taking Colson’s own words seriously, but that sounds like dominionism to me.</p>
<p>And Colson is no “obscure crank.” He’s the reigning elder statesman of the Religious Right, a major player whose books, columns and training programs have widespread influence in the movement.</p>
<p>Other Religious Right leaders have used similar theocratic language.</p>
<p>I don’t think all of them want to impose a Rushdoony-style theocracy on America. Frankly, too many of them have strayed to favor the death penalty for acts of adultery and homosexuality.</p>
<p>I do think they want to tear down the wall of separation between church and state so they can fund religious schools and other ministries with taxpayer dollars, pervade public schools with their religious perspective, ban all abortions, deny basic civil rights to the LGBT community and festoon courthouses and other public buildings with the symbols of their faith.</p>
<p>That may not be the definition of full-blown theocracy, but it’s too close to it for my tastes. Sorry, Chuck. We aren’t mischaracterizing your agenda. We’re exposing it.</p>
<p>And one more thing, Chuck: You’re no Martin Luther King. Dr. King worked to expand civil rights for all Americans. He didn’t try to impose a sectarian agenda that denied basic liberties to others. Stop comparing your movement to his. It’s offensive.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/churches-and-politics">Churches and Politics</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/chuck-colson">Chuck Colson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/dominionism">Dominionism</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/francis-schaeffer">Francis Schaeffer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-right-0">Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rousas-j-rushdoony">Rousas J. Rushdoony</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/southern-baptist-convention">Southern Baptist Convention</a></span></div></div>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:15:26 +0000Joseph L. Conn6030 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/dominion-denial-methinks-chuck-colson-doth-protest-too-much#comments